Read my latest response to the report you just filed. For some examples. Have you called others a dick? No, you haven't. But your general behaviour in this thread has been pretty bad. I ended up withdrawing entirely from the thread as a result of it.

Everyone has been throwing personal insults. But you seem to go out of your way to insult others and then complain when they throw it right back at you. My comment to you in regards to that report.. something something about glass houses and stones should apply here. You threw stones while living in a glass house. People will throw them back. Your complaining that they throw them back is a bit rich, don't you think?

My options are to either caution everyone else to not call you a dick because they would be lowering themselves to your level of behaviour in this thread, while not outright, the manner in which you post your insults are petty inferences and equally offensive. Or I close the thread completely because of your behaviour and because of how everyone has followed you down that particular rabbit hole. Which would you prefer?

You just want to deny any scientific evidence, in favor of appeasing their wholly subjective feelings.

Click to expand...

You can't name a single scientific fact or circumstance that I have denied. Meanwhile, you pretend that by typing the word "neuroplasticity" you can dismiss everything from brain structure findings to consistent and intersubjectively verifiable self-reports of orientation.

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

Read my latest response to the report you just filed. For some examples. Have you called others a dick? No, you haven't. But your general behaviour in this thread has been pretty bad. I ended up withdrawing entirely from the thread as a result of it.

Everyone has been throwing personal insults. But you seem to go out of your way to insult others and then complain when they throw it right back at you. My comment to you in regards to that report.. something something about glass houses and stones should apply here. You threw stones while living in a glass house. People will throw them back. Your complaining that they throw them back is a bit rich, don't you think?

My options are to either caution everyone else to not call you a dick because they would be lowering themselves to your level of behaviour in this thread, while not outright, the manner in which you post your insults are petty inferences and equally offensive. Or I close the thread completely because of your behaviour and because of how everyone has followed you down that particular rabbit hole. Which would you prefer?

Click to expand...

Then you were lying. Your "larger truth" trumps actual facts. Since you didn't find me calling anyone any names, you're just poisoning the well (ad hominem) saying that would be my level. You demonstrably lack intellectual honesty. Let's see what you cited as "everyone has followed you down that particular rabbit hole".

Demonstrably deluded - impose a misleading belief upon (someone); deceive; fool/to mislead the mind or judgment of.
Seems more likely you left this thread because you got called on your demonstrable intellectual dishonesty.

If he'd said 'yes' to the first two reasonable questions (which we can only assume unqualified advocacy for unisex facilities would be universal), then the third goes to motive. Only his lack of answer infers anything at all.

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/gender-identity-crazy-delusional.158986/page-8#post-3445061
iceaura: "So your apparent claim that neuroplasticity is "all psychological" is so clearly false as to imply you overlooked it."
Me: "You're a liar. Show me where I said neuroplasticity is "all psychological". Saying transgenderism "sounds all psychological" says nothing about neuroplasticity in general, because neuroplasticity accounts for more than transgenderism. You're basic reasoning skills just really aren't up to the task."​

Demonstrable lie of any claim I had made, and demonstrable that basic reasoning would have shown it such.

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

Mod Note
Thank you Syne, for a stunning display and example of misrepresentation and posting things out of context.

Which is a habit of yours.

There are a few reasons why I stopped responding to you. One, it is not my responsibility to provide you with more rope with which to hang yourself. Two, it was clear by the manner in which you were posting, that you were not posting in good faith and it was at the point of repeating the same thing over and over again and simply providing you with another avenue to troll, basically. And thirdly, I had surgery in that time, then had another minor operation when the stitches became undone and the thought of providing you with further chances to troll, thus increasing the likelihood that I would have to put on the mod hat, just did not appeal for some bizarre reason. Strange, I know, you being God's gift to all things argumentative and offensive, but I chose to simply observe and with good reason..

And funny that, because here I am, with mod hat in place.

Your manner of posting is offensive and aggressive. Your views on homosexuals and LGBT are well known and it was your initial bigotry that saw you removed as a moderator in the first place, when you used your position here to crack down on our LGBT members, which resulted in all staff demanding your removal.

You have repeatedly been condescending, offensive, arrogant, aggressive in some parts, and at times downright childish (how can a grown man resort to emoticon use multiple times in just about every single post is truly beyond me!), you have repeatedly misrepresented people's arguments and taken their posts out of context and twisted it around, not to mention you goad and flame people. You have accused others of being exactly how you behave towards everyone else. Now, if this was only aimed in one direction, then yes, you might have a point. But in this instance, you have repeatedly given more than you have received. Again, if you live in a glass house, you should not be lobbing stones.

I said I would call you a twat? Yes, and what you left out of that particular narrative was the fact that it was in response to your deliberately and condescendingly, not to mention insulting manner of referring to me as "deary", after pretty much accusing me of being stupid and deluded, and your response to that was to refer to me as "woman", as though I was an object. But hey, context is a foreign concept to you, so perhaps I should give you a pass? Or how about when you questioned how deluded I was? Oh wait, what's good for the gander and so on and so forth.

Now, no one else reported your posts in this thread, because, they recognised that they too were giving as good as they got and had they reported it, my response to them would have been the same as it was to you.

I provided you with numerous links of your equally problematic behaviour. I'll put it this way, if I action everyone else's, I would be remiss to not action yours in a similar fashion.

Instead of moderating everyone, I felt that a general warning to everyone, sufficed. It was also a reminder to everyone to not lower themselves to your manner of posting in the hope that they could respond to your frankly offensive display here with reason. I also understand how after nearly half a dozen pages, they are frustrated, but I would hope that they no longer allow their frustration to shine through their posts. I would also remind you that bringing up your penis/mentioning your penis into the discussion was probably not the most intelligent thing you have done.

If people are unable to continue with this thread without resorting to personal insults and whatnot, then I will close this thread.

I'll be blunt, Syne, if you cannot post in good faith, do not expect people to respect you or your posts in this thread and frankly, elsewhere on this website.

I hope this clears up any confusion you may have on the matter.

::Edited to remove sexual harassment of member::

My apologies to Syne for making him feel sexually harassed. It was not intentional or intended to come across that way.

Inferring that someone is stupid: "You have no idea what "idiosyncratic" means do you?

Click to expand...

That's not stupid, that's ignorant. You use a lot of words whose meaning you don't seem to know, for some reason.And you probably aren't using "infer" correctly, although there's an outside chance you are, so - - later.

iceaura: "So your apparent claim that neuroplasticity is "all psychological" is so clearly false as to imply you overlooked it."
Me: "You're a liar. Show me where I said neuroplasticity is "all psychological".

Click to expand...

I showed you. It was a direct implication of your argument, that you had apparently overlooked.

Get a dictionary, look up "infer", and pay attention to the "common errors" section of the usage notes. Along the way, reread the fifteen times people have had to point out to you that ignorance and stupidity are two completely different intellectual deficits.

No comment.
Look: half your posts belong in the Linguistics subforum as questions - "What's wrong with this?" type questions. But people here have actually taken the time and trouble to sort through the inept and illiterate usage and figure out what you seem to be talking about. And that turns out to be worse - your inept language actually works to hide the problems with your thinking, and makes whacking your latest Foxnation notion a lot harder than it should be. It does so consistently. And at some point this consistent role, and your repeated resort to it, starts to look like dishonesty rather then ineptitude.

So show us how it isn't. Use words correctly, say what you mean. Start here, with this transgender stuff, and your claim that transgender people suffer from delusions, have beliefs that conflict with established facts. What delusions are you talking about? Put it simply, like "transgender people people believe ____, but the established fact is ______".

Or are you a predator?"If he'd said 'yes' to the first two reasonable questions (which we can only assume unqualified advocacy for unisex facilities would be universal), then the third goes to motive. Only his lack of answer infers anything at all.

Click to expand...

What does a lack of answer to any of those questions infer? I’ve repeatedly stated throughout this thread that I have no problem with trans women using locker rooms for women. Since an untransitioned trans woman is physically a man, by extension I have no problem with men using women’s locker rooms either. I imagine if a man or a woman entered a locker room with the intent to commit a criminal assault, that could conceivably make them a predator. Why would you insinuate that to be a personal motive of mine?

I hope that my remarks in this Thread do not lead any Posters/readers to believe that I an homophobic.

In my youth (many decades ago), I frequented coffee shops in center city Philadelphia & became friendly with more than a few gay men, which were called faggots in that era & often subject to physical abuse by red necks. The best man at my first marriage was gay.

I want to go on record as denying any belief that homosexuality between consenting adults is immoral, illegal, neurotic, or fattening.

From Billvon Posts # 3 & #7

. . . . Gender identity is not insanity, any more than homosexuality is.

Nope, no more so than homosexuality or monogamy is delusional.

Click to expand...

I have already apologized for using the word insanity, which implies a serious level of dysfunctional behavior.

First, I have never claimed or made remarks indicating that I consider homosexuality or monogamy delusional. That would be a ridiculous claim since homosexuality & monogamy are observable behaviors.

The above is fundamentally different from homosexuality. A homosexual does not consider himself to have a female brain in a male body. He merely prefers sex with a man to sex with a woman.​

I do not know of a word other than delusion which better describes a gender identity mismatch. I wonder if psychologists have a specific term for this mismatch between anatomy and self descriptive thoughts.

The problem - or rather, the central one in a cluster of problems - is: much of the anatomy isn't obvious at all. Outer and inner anatomy may be "mismatched" in any number of ways, in practically all organ systems. In a very complex machine, not only are most of the workings invisible, but far too many relations and interactions may work in non-standard ways for anyone to say with certainty what the standard should be.
There is a broad, dense band of appearance/self-perception/behaviour patterns that are similar enough to be designated "the norm", and a relatively sparse outer fringe, of individuals that are different in various particulars, along either side of it. This non-standard fringe population can be viewed with benign acceptance, indifference, curiosity, anxiety, derision, pity, superstitious dread, moral indignation, loathing, rejection or hostility. How a social structure responds to its fringe specimens is a function of the norm-setting power elite, not of the non-standard specimens. This holds true in all highly developed organisms and is most striking in the social species.

So, when you are looking for a word to describe the mismatch between appearance and self-perception, it's helpful to look both ways: toward the center, as well as toward the edges.

Mod Note
Thank you Syne, for a stunning display and example of misrepresentation and posting things out of context.

Which is a habit of yours.

Click to expand...

Yet you only make the bare assertion, rather than actually citing an example and explaining why it's supposedly "out of context". This is just more poisoning the well in lieu of actual argument. When you make assertions, you are required to support them...unless you're a transparent hypocrite.

There are a few reasons why I stopped responding to you. One, it is not my responsibility to provide you with more rope with which to hang yourself. Two, it was clear by the manner in which you were posting, that you were not posting in good faith and it was at the point of repeating the same thing over and over again and simply providing you with another avenue to troll, basically. And thirdly, I had surgery in that time, then had another minor operation when the stitches became undone and the thought of providing you with further chances to troll, thus increasing the likelihood that I would have to put on the mod hat, just did not appeal for some bizarre reason. Strange, I know, you being God's gift to all things argumentative and offensive, but I chose to simply observe and with good reason..

Click to expand...

Just because you do not agree doesn't mean someone is not posting in good faith. Contrary to many in this thread, I have provided supporting sources for much of what I've said (that you conveniently failed to acknowledge). And yes, it does get repetitive when people refuse to acknowledge the facts and citations provided....only to reassert points already shown to be erroneous.

Your manner of posting is offensive and aggressive.

Click to expand...

What specifically makes them "offensive" (other than you not agreeing) and "aggressive" (other than you getting your feeling hurt for not being taken seriously on your word alone)?

You have repeatedly been condescending, offensive, arrogant, aggressive in some parts, and at times downright childish (how can a grown man resort to emoticon use multiple times in just about every single post is truly beyond me!), you have repeatedly misrepresented people's arguments and taken their posts out of context and twisted it around, not to mention you goad and flame people. You have accused others of being exactly how you behave towards everyone else. Now, if this was only aimed in one direction, then yes, you might have a point. But in this instance, you have repeatedly given more than you have received. Again, if you live in a glass house, you should not be lobbing stones.

Click to expand...

Aside from the ridiculous hypocrisy in claiming that ONE person gives more than they get from MANY people, your objections boil down to tone policing...a form of trolling. And more bare assertions such as "you...flame people". Where are the examples? Don't you need to support you own claims?

I've shown many examples, and could find plenty more, of others being "condescending, offensive, arrogant, aggressive in some parts, and at times downright childish", but I assume there's a double standard here.

And if you don't like emoticons, have the admin get rid of them. They provide context lacking in text alone.

I said I would call you a twat? Yes, and what you left out of that particular narrative was the fact that it was in response to your deliberately and condescendingly, not to mention insulting manner of referring to me as "deary", after pretty much accusing me of being stupid and deluded, and your response to that was to refer to me as "woman", as though I was an object. But hey, context is a foreign concept to you, so perhaps I should give you a pass? Or how about when you questioned how deluded I was? Oh wait, what's good for the gander and so on and so forth.

Click to expand...

You're lying again. Go look. I just posted the context to that exchange:

I provided you with numerous links of your equally problematic behaviour. I'll put it this way, if I action everyone else's, I would be remiss to not action yours in a similar fashion.

Click to expand...

Only because you equivocate observation for actual name calling by conflating "problematic" with actual forum rule violations.

Instead of moderating everyone, I felt that a general warning to everyone, sufficed. It was also a reminder to everyone to not lower themselves to your manner of posting in the hope that they could respond to your frankly offensive display here with reason. I also understand how after nearly half a dozen pages, they are frustrated, but I would hope that they no longer allow their frustration to shine through their posts. I would also remind you that inserting your penis into the discussion was probably not the most intelligent thing you have done.

Click to expand...

Again, you've completely failed to support that my "level" is that of calling others a "penis".
And you have been reported for sexual harassment for: "I would also remind you that inserting your penis into the discussion"
You should refrain from referring to anyone "inserting your penis". I was asked a direct question about genitalia and gender, and I answered it. That does not give anyone the excuse to call me a "penis" or suggest where I have or have not "inserted" it.

If people are unable to continue with this thread without resorting to personal insults and whatnot, then I will close this thread.

I'll be blunt, Syne, if you cannot post in good faith, do not expect people to respect you or your posts in this thread and frankly, elsewhere on this website.

I hope this clears up any confusion you may have on the matter.

Click to expand...

Your subjective opinion isn't the criteria of 'good faith'.
You're a hypocrite who refuses to see the lack of good faith in others denial of the science of neuroplasticity.

Again, you've completely failed to support that my "level" is that of calling others a "penis".

Click to expand...

Just for the record, I didn't call you a dick - I merely reported what some very smart people have been saying - just like your hero the SCROTUS regularly does. In any event, I apologized for lowering myself to the debased level of the Orange one. Let it go, you're acting like a snowflake - perhaps there is a nearby safe zone for you.
(thanks to DrKrettin - http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-trump-presidency.158659/page-52#post-3445782)

Mod Note
Syne, I have addressed the issues raised in my previous post. I am not going to go over this with you again, since this was addressed in my responses to you multiple times via reports which came to you via PM, where you were provided with multiple links and an explanation, and also in this thread, after you decided to respond to a Mod Note I addressed to others to comment on my responses to the reports you filed, which were handled via PM.. If you do not like the decisions I have taken, you are more than welcome to PM another moderator to seek a review of the thread and the issue. As far as I am concerned, this issue is now closed. And I won't be addressing it any further in thread or via PM with you. And your still going on about it is just further derailing the thread.

The problem - or rather, the central one in a cluster of problems - is: much of the anatomy isn't obvious at all. Outer and inner anatomy may be "mismatched" in any number of ways, in practically all organ systems. In a very complex machine, not only are most of the workings invisible, but far too many relations and interactions may work in non-standard ways for anyone to say with certainty what the standard should be.
There is a broad, dense band of appearance/self-perception/behaviour patterns that are similar enough to be designated "the norm", and a relatively sparse outer fringe, of individuals that are different in various particulars, along either side of it. This non-standard fringe population can be viewed with benign acceptance, indifference, curiosity, anxiety, derision, pity, superstitious dread, moral indignation, loathing, rejection or hostility. How a social structure responds to its fringe specimens is a function of the norm-setting power elite, not of the non-standard specimens. This holds true in all highly developed organisms and is most striking in the social species.

So, when you are looking for a word to describe the mismatch between appearance and self-perception, it's helpful to look both ways: toward the center, as well as toward the edges.

Yet you only make the bare assertion, rather than actually citing an example and explaining why it's supposedly "out of context". This is just more poisoning the well in lieu of actual argument. When you make assertions, you are required to support them...unless you're a transparent hypocrite.

Just because you do not agree doesn't mean someone is not posting in good faith. Contrary to many in this thread, I have provided supporting sources for much of what I've said (that you conveniently failed to acknowledge). And yes, it does get repetitive when people refuse to acknowledge the facts and citations provided....only to reassert points already shown to be erroneous.

What specifically makes them "offensive" (other than you not agreeing) and "aggressive" (other than you getting your feeling hurt for not being taken seriously on your word alone)?

Aside from the ridiculous hypocrisy in claiming that ONE person gives more than they get from MANY people, your objections boil down to tone policing...a form of trolling. And more bare assertions such as "you...flame people". Where are the examples? Don't you need to support you own claims?

I've shown many examples, and could find plenty more, of others being "condescending, offensive, arrogant, aggressive in some parts, and at times downright childish", but I assume there's a double standard here.

Only because you equivocate observation for actual name calling by conflating "problematic" with actual forum rule violations.

Again, you've completely failed to support that my "level" is that of calling others a "penis".
And you have been reported for sexual harassment for: "I would also remind you that inserting your penis into the discussion"
You should refrain from referring to anyone "inserting your penis". I was asked a direct question about genitalia and gender, and I answered it. That does not give anyone the excuse to call me a "penis" or suggest where I have or have not "inserted" it.

Your subjective opinion isn't the criteria of 'good faith'.
You're a hypocrite who refuses to see the lack of good faith in others denial of the science of neuroplasticity.

Click to expand...

Friend : I would not talk to this woman , I agree, she is poison and she is using her position to intimidate.

The problem - or rather, the central one in a cluster of problems - is: much of the anatomy isn't obvious at all. Outer and inner anatomy may be "mismatched" in any number of ways, in practically all organ systems. In a very complex machine, not only are most of the workings invisible, but far too many relations and interactions may work in non-standard ways for anyone to say with certainty what the standard should be.... etc.

I hope that my remarks in this Thread do not lead any Posters/readers to believe that I an homophobic. In my youth (many decades ago), I frequented coffee shops in center city Philadelphia & became friendly with more than a few gay men, which were called faggots in that era & often subject to physical abuse by red necks. The best man at my first marriage was gay.

Click to expand...

While I am not claiming you are homophobic, saying "I have gay friends; I am not homophobic!" has no more validity than the tired "I have black friends; I'm not racist!"

First, I have never claimed or made remarks indicating that I consider homosexuality or monogamy delusional. That would be a ridiculous claim since homosexuality & monogamy are observable behaviors.

Interestingly, Syne (the other person advocating for such labels) claims that "My penis isn't the totality of my identity as a man." So he'd disagree there.

Click to expand...

My gender identity isn't a "mismatch between obvious anatomical characteristics". Genitals don't have to be the totality of gender identity for the other parts of gender identity to also correlate to having particular genitals. Basic reasoning people.

My gender identity isn't a "mismatch between obvious anatomical characteristics". Genitals don't have to be the totality of gender identity for the other parts of gender identity to also correlate to having particular genitals. Basic reasoning people.

Click to expand...

My testicles are my identity of male , there is were sperm is formed , the penis can be cut of an give to an animal for meat . But my testicles will produce sperm which can come out though the opening , and this sperm can be collected and introduced into a woman to get her pregnant.